Q And as we discussed, that means that in addition
to whatever effect it had on intelligent design, it also means
that teachers in Dover won't teach what we call macro evolution
and speciation, correct?

Q Mr. Baksa, what I've just given to you is what
we've marked as plaintiff's exhibit 31, which is the Miller and
Levine textbook for 2004 that is now being used in Dover High
School. Could you turn to page 381 of that book?

If you look at the bottom of the page, there's a
heading "Descent with Modification"?

Q And it says, "Darwin proposed that over long
periods natural selection produces organisms that have different
structures, established different niches, or occupy different
habitats. As a result, species today look different from their
ancestors. Each living species has descended with changes from
other species over time. He referred to this principle as descent
with modification."

Under the board's policy that origins of life is
not taught, that aspect of evolution cannot be taught to the
Dover High School students, correct?

A That I wouldn't know. The teachers make
decisions on the content in the chapters and the material -- they
choose the material they use to teach to the instructional goals
that they've set for the course. Whether they would include this
information, I wouldn't know that.

Q Okay, but it does say each living species has
descended with changes from other species over time. Do you --
you understand that to be speciation, right?

Q Okay. And as we've discussed, under the board s
policy stating that origins of life is not taught, speciation is
out, right?

A Well, again, I would defer, I mean that's -- I m
not a science teacher, and the manner in which they would use
this content, I wouldn't know. I don't know if there's an
appropriate manner they would be able to use with the curriculum
change or not. I think they would be the best to determine
that.

Q Certainly any science teacher faced with a
policy from the board that says origins of life is not taught,
and the understanding that, by that, the board means no
speciation or macro evolution, a teacher would have reason to
believe that he or she couldn't teach this aspect of the
Miller-Levine textbook; would you agree?

A My understanding from what -- in my meeting with
teachers is that the curriculum change would not affect any of
the past instructional objectives they've had, or the teaching
that they've done in the past. They would teach the same course,
same materials, same instructional goals as they had in the past
even with the new curriculum change.

Q But you would agree that whatever their practice
was in the past, that discretion has now been removed from them
and now it is policy, origins of life is not taught?

Q And if you could turn to page 40 It's headed,
The Process of Speciation. Based on your understanding of the
note origins of life is not taught, that subject matter is also
off limits for the teachers, isn't it?

A Again, I don't know how the teachers would use
this content and if it would be permissible or not. Again, that
would be their -- their professional judgment on choosing the
materials and the content.

Q Including their judgment about what the board's
policy means, correct?

Q And under that it says, "Analyze data from
fossil records, records, similarities in anatomy and physiology,
embryological studies and DNA studies that are relevant to the
theory of evolution." You understand that those are all types of
evidence that are relevant to the issue of macro evolution, don't
you?

Q And based on what we've discussed, the note
origins of life is not taught, these aspects of the standards
would be outside the Dover High School curriculum, correct?

A No. My understanding is, I remember in one of
the meetings with the board curriculum committee, I remember Mr.
Eshbach saying that when talking about common ancestry, that the
way they presented it is the evidence in DNA. And I remember his
explanation of how they present it, that linkage was satisfactory
to the board. So I do remember our teachers talking about they do
teach about the DNA.

Q And what he said was his understanding of what
the teachers do, and what was memorialized in the note origins of
life is not taught, is that the teachers would only teach micro
evolution, change within a species, correct?

Q And if he had that understanding, it's
reasonable to believe the teachers had that understanding,
wouldn't you agree?

A Well, the teachers did say they were teaching
DNA as to demonstrate common ancestry. And they did say that to
the board curriculum committee.

Q You would agree at best there's a -- there's
uncertainty about whether teachers can teach these various pieces
of evidence for common ancestry?

A My understanding is that the -- even as we were
drafting the language with the teachers, that the teachers did
not feel that the new language would in any way inhibit them or
prohibit them from teaching any of the content that they ve
taught in the past.

Q Could you go down to the third bullet point
under D in the second to right column.

Q It says, "Compare modern day descendents of
extinct species and propose possible scientific accounts for
their present appearance." Would you agree that that is an
analysis that relates to the issue of speciation?

Q And then if you go over to the objectives for
twelfth grade, under D, "Analyze the theory of evolution," it
says, "Examine human history by describing the progression from
early hominids to modern humans." Do you see that?

Q So that would require students to learn about
common ancestry of humans with prior species, correct?

A Well, I don't know -- I don't know that -- I'm
not familiar with the term hominids, if that is a species that is
different, in this standard, to modern humans. So I don't know
how our staff does approach that and if that would present a
problem to them.

Q Sitting here today you don't know whether under
the policy established by the school board, whether teachers
could teach, consistent with that policy, the objective -- this
objective in the Pennsylvania state standards?

A Right. I would have to rely on the teachers,
whether they felt there was anything that prohibited them from
teaching any of the standards.

Q And as we discussed, the teachers would have to
make a judgment whether, in doing that, they would be violating
the board's policy, correct?

Q Going back to the October 18th meeting. You did
observe Mrs. Yingling, Angie Yingling, being told that she would
be an atheist or unChristian if she did not vote for the
intelligent design resolution?

Q Could you look at the question on line ten of
page 174. I asked you, "In articles, after the resolution was
voted on, Angie Yingling has been quoted as saying that members
of the board suggested that she would be atheist or unChristian
if she didn't vote for the intelligent design resolution. Did you
observe any remarks of that kind?" And you answered, "Yes."

A Yes. And what I'm answering is you began the
question -- this is my understanding -- you said, "In articles
after resolution." I did read about that in the articles and
that's how I answered the question.

A And I'm telling you, I understood that question
to be preceded within articles, because then you asked me about
Casey Brown, whether I did anything, but you don't use the word
"in articles" in there, and I said no, I did not hear any
personal remarks to board members.

Q In any event, you're not aware of anybody trying
to correct that allegation by Ms. Yingling in that newspaper, is
that true?

Q What Mr. Neal wrote to you is, "In light of last
night's apparent change from a, quote, standards-driven, close
quote, school district, to the quote, living word-driven school
district, Mr. Hoover and I would like some direction in how to
adapt our judicial branch unit. It's apparent that the Supreme
Court of the United States has it all wrong. Is there some
supplemental text that we can use to set our students straight as
to the, quote, real, close quote, law of the land? We will be
entering this unit within the next month and are concerned that
we would be polluting our students minds if we continue to use
our curriculum as currently written in accordance with the PA
standards."

Q And what you wrote is, "Brad, all kidding aside,
be careful what you ask for. I've been given a copy of the Myth
of Separation by David Barton to review from board members.
Social Studies curriculum is next year. Feel free to borrow my
copy to get an idea of where the board is coming from. Thanks."
That's how you responded, right?

Q Mr. Baksa, what I'm going to hand you is exhibit
P-179, which is the Myth of Separation by David Barton. And this
was the book that you were passing on to Mr. Neal so he would get
an idea where the board is coming from on the issue of Social
Studies curriculum, correct?

A "The doctrine of separation of church and state
is absurd; it has been repeated often; and people have believed
it. It is amazing what continually hearing about separation of
church and state can do to a nation."

Q And then if you go to the next page, page 47,
the title of the chapter is, "We Are a Christian Nation,"
correct?

Q And then if you could turn to page 82 of the
book. The last sentence of the chapter reads, "Our fathers
intended that this nation should be a Christian nation, not
because all who lived in it were Christians, but because it was
founded on and would be governed and guided by Christian
principles." Correct?

Q And then if you could turn to page 260, this is
a paragraph -- a chapter titled "The Solution." If you look in
the first full paragraph, what Mr. Barton writes in the book that
Mr. Bonsell is recommending is, "We must recall our foundation
and former values and establish in our thinking the conviction
that this nation's institutions must return to their original
foundation -- the principles expressed through the Bible." Is
that correct?

Q I'm sorry, 265. And what Mr. Barton recommends
is part of the solution is that -- if you could highlight that
first sentence -- "Morality acquired only with emphasis from
religious principles must again become an emphasis in education."
This is where the board was coming from, right Mr. Baksa?

A Mr. Bonsell -- my understanding is that when I
received the book from Mr. Bonsell, and in my earlier
conversations with him when I first came to Dover, I did have
conversations and Mr. Bonsell expressed to me a desire to make
sure that our students learned about the founding fathers in the
constitution. I mean that's the extent of my knowledge of, you
know, his emphasis on the founding fathers.

Q And the emphasis on the founding fathers in this
book is about this being a Christian nation and that morality in
education should be acquired only from religious principles,
right?

A Well, I haven't read the whole book to agree
with the emphasis. Certainly the passages you pointed out point
to that.

Q And so these are the two areas of curriculum
that Mr. Bonsell has devoted his attention to, alternatives to
the theory of evolution, and telling the students that this
nation was founded as a Christian nation and must return to that
condition.

A Well, I don't remember Mr. Bonsell ever telling
me that we need to -- this nation is a Christian nation and we
need to return to that. I remember him talking about making sure
that we devoted sufficient time to teaching about the founding
fathers and the constitution.

Q And the one book that he gave you to explain
what he meant was this book, the Myth of Separation?

Q And, for example, in the first paragraph it adds
the words "eventually take a standardized test" and that's in
there because actually they weren't going to take a standardized
test for a few years, right?

Q And then if you go to the next paragraph, Mrs.
Miller, or the teachers added the language to your language,
"Darwin's theory is a theory," by saying, "there is a significant
amount of evidence that supports the theory, although" -- and
then it continues with your language -- "it is still being
testing as new evidence is discovered." Right?

Q Right. And they -- you had language in your
draft about intelligent design being another theory of evolution.
And they changed that to be an explanation of the origin of life
that differs from Darwin's view, right?

Q And when we talk about the board here, who on
the board is editing these drafts?

A The board, I believe we were in the executive
session, and the board -- I distributed the initial draft to the
board and asked for their feedback. And then I remember
suggestions from Mrs. Harkins and Mrs. Geesey.

Q So when we see lines striking some of the text
here, those reflect suggestions by Mrs. Harkins and Mrs.
Geesey?

Q All right. Let's discuss the first edit first.
You had actually suggested this language, "Darwin's theory of
evolution continues to be the dominant scientific explanation of
the origin of species." Right, that was in your original
draft?

Q If that language had been left in, students
would have learned from their teachers, or whoever read the
statement, that Darwin's theory of evolution is the dominant
scientific explanation of the origin of species, right?

Q And you had no reason to doubt that this is
actually an accurate portrayal of Darwin's theory, because
Darwin's theory is a theory, there is a significant amount of
evidence that supports the theory, although it is still being
tested as new evidence is discovered. You had no reason to
believe that this wasn't an accurate statement of Darwin's theory
of evolution?

Q And you did that because that's -- because the
board didn't want language like that, right?

A Well, the -- actually, the board only had my
copy, and this was now the board's edit and the teachers edit
that I'm combining, so I don't think the board ever saw that
language. But from my meeting with the board previously where
they striked out "dominant scientific explanation," I didn't
think they would be supportive of that language, so I took it
upon myself to delete that language.

Q And it says, "In an effort to gain an
understanding of what intelligent design actually involves" -- I
think that's an addition to the previous sentence about Pandas,
and then, "As is true with any theory, you are encouraged to keep
an open mind." Correct?

Q So to summarize, the board took out language
proposed by the administration and by the science faculty that
would suggest that the theory of evolution is a sound theory;
would you agree?

A I agree that the board took out language that I
think my understanding is that they felt, and one of their main
concerns was they felt that the Darwin's theory was being
overstated in the text. And my understanding is that language in
this statement, they were again concerned about maybe the same
issue, not overstating Darwin's theory.

Q You didn't feel that way about the statement
that you and Mrs. Miller developed? You didn't feel like it was
overstating it?

Q Right, but it's only -- and I'm not suggesting
there aren't gaps, but it's only the things in the draft
statement that were negative about evolution, not positive about
evolution. That's how it ended out, right?

A I don't see it that way -- I mean. I don't see
it that way. I see that the edits that were done by the board or
the absence of some of the language that the teachers wanted
included, that that language would have been stronger in support
of Darwin's evolution, and the language that was ultimately
adopted isn't as strong, but I don't see it as negative.

Q In any event, from the teachers perspective, the
end result was that language they had suggested and language you
had suggested that they were comfortable with, was excluded from
the final statement?

Q You can understand why the teachers wouldn't
want the public, including their students, to believe they had
ownership over this process?

A Well, if you're going back to, you know, their
reaction to Dr. Nilsen's press release, again, I even thought
that the press release was simply what was being reported in the
papers was that teachers weren't involved, that we weren't
answering any of their questions. It sounded like we weren't
working with them, that they had nothing to do with the process.
They certainly had something to do with the process. Did it
result in language here in the statement exactly as they would
have wanted it? No, it didn t, you know, there were edits to
it.

So there's involvement that way, and I don't -- I
didn't think the press release tried to make a point of saying
that the teachers had signed on fully supportive of everything
that happened, just that they -- they were aware of what was
happening.

Q They were aware, they made suggestions, and many
of their important suggestions were rejected, right?

Q And in fact, it's fair to say that from the
perspective that they were operating from, the statement got
worse from the time you gave it to them, until the final
version?

A Well, again, some language that they wanted was
not included. I don't ever remember having a conversation at the
end of the day after the final language was drafted, with their
opinion of what finally was done. So I don't -- I can't answer,
you know, how they felt at the end of the day with the final
language.

Q Now, you agree that students are not told that
any other theory taught in science class in the Dover School
District is a theory, not a fact, right?

Q Singled out by the board and the administration,
why evolution is being singled out for this treatment, different
from all the other scientific concepts taught to Dover
students.

A Just -- I just know the concerns that were
expressed to me from some board members that they felt that it
was overstated in the textbook and they had that concern.

Q And nobody has explained why, you know, you
know, a half dozen or dozen other scientific theories that are
presented to Dover students aren't also -- the students aren't
also told them about them; it's a theory, not a fact. You don't
know why evolution gets that special treatment?

Q Now, further down the road, after this statement
was in effect, you actually warned the science teachers that they
could be putting themselves in a risky position by standing up to
the board on the issue of what is being taught in biology class,
correct?

A I had a conversation with -- a private
conversation with Mrs. Miller at which the teachers had been on a
couple forums for discussing the issue, and the implementation of
the new curriculum change and talking about ID. And I felt that
it was -- wasn't necessary for them to put themselves in the
middle of this. The board had made a decision. Once a board makes
a decision, whether you agree with that decision or not, it's our
responsibility to implement that and not continue to publicly
protest their decision.

Q And the reason you were telling them this is
because you were looking out for them, right?

A Well, yeah, I didn't think they needed to put
themselves in a risky position, correct.

Q And one of the things that you thought might put
them at risk was the position they took about not reading the
statement, correct?

A No, they were okay about that, because they had
-- they had requested from Dr. Nilsen that they not read the
statement, and Dr. Nilsen granted that request. What happened
after that is they had agreed to distribute the opt-out forms to
students, and never communicated to Dr. Nilsen or myself that
they weren't going to do that. And I explained that a legal --
were there to be given a legal opinion about their actions and
whether that constituted insubordination or not was iffy, and
that they put themselves at risk by doing something like that and
not communicating.

Q But you also, I mean, you told me at your
deposition they were putting themselves at risk by taking the
position not to read the statement, right?

Q Could you turn to page 98 of your March 9
deposition. At line ten I asked you, "Is one of the things that
they had done that you thought might put them at risk, does that
include the position they took that they did not want to read the
statement?" And you answered, "Yes." Correct?

A But if you read further, I kind of clarify that
and again I go back to saying, if you look at line 17, I say,
"Because I felt that they did not have -- it wasn't the statement
so much as we had come to an agreement about the procedures for
implementing the reading of the statement at a meeting with the
teachers, we reviewed how we were going to do that, and they were
in agreement with that. After that, they submitted a request not
to have to do that, and the superintendent responded that he
would make that accommodation in this particular instance. What
they failed to do was on Friday they were to distribute the forms
for students to be excused from classes without informing anybody
of that. I felt that that action was risky in that there was an
administrative understanding for them to do so, and they didn't
do so. And if examined by counsel, that could be determined to be
an act of insubordination which would put them at risk." So I
think I clarified it.

Q Sure. But in any event you felt that, as a
general matter, that they needed to be careful in terms of
standing up to the board on the biology curriculum, correct?

Q Mr. Rothschild has asked you a number of
questions and I want to make sure the record is clear on some of
your responses.

The first area I would like to ask you about is
your attendance at the seminar given at Messiah College in 2003.
As a result of your attendance at that seminar, did you learn
anything about the legality of teaching creationism?

Q Let me ask you this, Mike. In your conversations
with Mr. Bonsell about his objection to evolutionary theory, did
he give you additional information?

A When Mr. Bonsell was expressing his concerns to
me about the treatment of evolution in the text, my understanding
is that he also talked about having read an article about -- that
cast out on carbon 14 dating. He did talk about seeing a video
that showed an earlier, a bear changing through evolution into a
whale, which he thought was improbable. And but just generally
thought that the treatment in the book portrayed it as a fact
with no room for any doubt whatsoever on any aspect of the
theory.

Q How about discussions of the statistical
improbability of cellular life, biological life emerging? Did he
ever provide you with information about that?

Q You've been asked some questions about this. I
want to ask you a few more. What knowledge concerning creationism
or the teaching of creationism did you have at the time that you
drafted this document?

A Well, I'm -- at this point I had gone to
Messiah, and there the presenters were -- you know, did put forth
that thought, the discussion of other theories or other
explanations other than Darwin, that those made for a good
discussion in the classroom. And at this time I did know that the
teachers had been giving some explanation before they started
teaching evolution that they were mentioning creationism.

Q When you drafted this document, did you believe
that it would require a departure from existing practice in the
classroom?

Q Mr. Rothschild has noted that the language of
exhibit 286 includes "demonstrate awareness." Was there any
particular reason that you used that language in this draft
document?

A Well, I remember -- I remember when looking at
the language of all of the other -- for instance, right above
"students will be able to list," and what I tried to do is
simply, when you write instructional objectives for students you
put some type of action verb in there that students will list or
demonstrate or identify. So I was just trying to duplicate the
language that you use, the verbiage you use when you create an
instructional objective.

Q Well, there's been a great deal of discussion of
the curriculum change that was adopted by the board on October 18
.

Do you see a difference between the language you
employed in this document and the language that's incorporated in
the curriculum change that was actually approved by the
board?

A Well, the language simply says, "Students will
be made aware of," and the language "to demonstrate anything" is
removed.

Q Mr. -- now, let me ask you this, is that
language choice on your part related to the distinction you ve
addressed between teaching and making aware?

A Well, if you have language in there that says to
demonstrate, then you don't -- that language could lead you to
believe that students will be assessed in some way to be able to
demonstrate that. So students -- we weren't teaching it. They
weren't going to be assessed, so that language wasn't
necessary.

A At this meeting we were trying to come to some
understanding of what would need to be done on a number of our
parts for Bill to move forward for approval of the books. And
there had been talk of creationism, and we said, well, teachers
had been mentioning creationism, but we ll simply replace that
with intelligent design instead of creationism.

Q And when you did that, did you think this change
would have any impact on teacher instruction in the
classroom?

A No, I didn't think they would do anything
differently than they did before.

Q Did you think it would have any impact on what
they taught and assessed in the classroom?

Q Speaking of intelligent design, did you ever --
did teachers ever communicate with you concerning whether they
were trained to teach intelligent design?

A Well, I remember one of their concerns was that,
when we were talking about the introduction of anything, is that
their educational background and schooling is in the biological
sciences and Darwin's theory of evolution, that they're not
schooled in any other material and especially when it came down
to the possibility of them having to answer questions, they
didn't feel that they were able to answer questions about
intelligent design.

Q At any point in this process did they give you a
detailed scientific criticism of intelligent design theory?

Q I would ask you to look at defendant's exhibit
20. And if you direct your attention to the bottom most notation
underneath the strike out. I'd ask you to read that, Mike, since
you it's your writing and you should be responsible for it.

A It was my understanding at the end of this
meeting that we were going to, that we agreed to put some
language into the curriculum, and I thought I remembered reading
this back -- this was at the very end of the meeting, and I
thought I remember reading this back and that everybody was in
agreement with that.

A Because we weren't going to teach it, and
teachers were mentioning creationism already, so we were just
replacing that with intelligent design.

Q Let me ask you, there's been some discussion of
the comparison between the 2002 and 2004 editions of the Miller
and Levine, and at the time that review was conducted you had
some complaints about the text from Mr. Buckingham.

So I want to ask you, did the comparison of the
text influence the way you viewed Mr. Buckingham s
objections?

A Well, I guess what was interesting is, if you
look at all of Mr. Buckingham's original list, and when you go to
those pages and those sections in the new edition of Miller and
Levine, they actually were addressed. So some of his concerns
about common ancestry and gaps and problems in overstating the
evidence, that there was actually changes made that he had
identified earlier.

Q You were questioned about some statements that
Mr. Buckingham made at public meetings, and I wasn't quite clear
on this and wanted to make sure the record was clear.

Do you ever remember Mr. Buckingham making a
statement to the effect that the country wasn't founded on
evolution?

Q Mr. Rothschild has questioned you about the
meetings that the teachers attended and some concessions they
made. I want to ask you about those meetings. When the fall 2003
meeting with Mr. Bonsell broke up, how would you describe the
parting of the parties? Was it collegial, cordial or hostile?

Q Mr. Rothschild asked you some questions about a
document, defendant's exhibit 35. And your testimony I thought
was somewhat confusing, Mike, no offense, but I want to ask you,
did you ever read that document?

Q And he asked you some fair questions about the
process whereby this document was produced. I just want to make
sure the record is clear on this. If you look at the first page,
Mike, with the Bate stamp number 28 on it, I'd ask you to read
the description you provided beneath the re.

A "Attached is a recommended curriculum change for
biology. The changes were reviewed by the science
department."

Q And then if you would look at the attached
document, and I think we all agree that the proper attachment is
Bate stamp 29.

Q Mr. Rothschild has drawn attention to the
concessions that the teachers made as the curriculum policy at
issue was hashed out, and I want to ask you a few questions about
that. From your perspective as the administrator, plainly someone
who was in the middle, do you believe that the board made
concessions in this process?

A Well, yeah, we ended up at a far different place
than the board -- some board members originally intended us to
go.

Q Well, let me ask you this. You've mentioned that
the administration went on record in support of either of the two
versions that the teachers were willing to work with. Am I
correct that those are the versions that are Roman 11-B and Roman
11-C?

Q And I want to ask you now, why did you do that?
Was it a principled objection to intelligent design or something
else? What was the basis for your position?

A Well, in -- especially in schools, in that
culture, whenever you implement a change, if the change is going
to be successful and effective, there has to be a demonstrated
buy-in by those that are going to be most affected. So it's
absolutely critical that if the teachers are going to have
something that's affecting their curriculum, that they're
supportive of that, otherwise the chances of it being implemented
the way it's proposed and being successful are severely
diminished.

Q Mr. Rothschild asked you some questions about
the Social Studies curriculum and a book that Mr. Bonsell
provided. Let me ask you, did he ever ask you to implement any
change to the Social Studies curriculum?

Q Mr. Rothschild has questioned you about the
various versions of this statement and the way they were drafted
out. At the time that process was playing itself out, did you
have an understanding concerning whether the board saw the
statement as related to the text in its presentation of
evolutionary theory as designed to address some aspects of the
text they thought should be addressed?

Q Well, what I'm asking you is, you talked about
balance and so on in the presentation of evolutionary theory in
the text. Did you see the statement as related to the board's
view of the presentation of the evolutionary theory in the
Miller-Levine text?

THE COURT: Not only is it leading, but I think --
and I understand, Mr. Gillen, you're trying to clarify points in
his testimony, but I think we're starting to plow up areas that
have pretty well been clarified.

Why don't you rephrase. I'll sustain the
objection. If you want to stay on that point, you'll have to
rephrase, but we've been down this road.

MR. GILLEN: Well, if you believe we've been down
the road, Judge, I'm not going to go down there again.

Q Let me ask you, Mike, one final question then,
or a few. You've forthrightly given your opinion that the
teachers were acting to promote what they saw as the best
interests of the children in their judgment. And I would like to
ask you for your same opinion with respect to the conduct of the
board. Do you think the board was proceeding in a like
manner?

Q Based upon your education and experience as an
administrator, do you have an understanding concerning whether
the board or the teachers have the final say when they differ in
judgment concerning whether a given curriculum policy is in the
best interest of the children?

MR. GILLEN: Objection, Your Honor. He's not
allowed to inquire into what we talked about. And what's more,
it's my client, so whatever -- whatever I do to advise him is
legal advice.

MR. ROTHSCHILD: Your Honor, again, it is a yes/no
question. And furthermore, it is my view that it is what is
improper to meet with Mr. Baksa while he was on cross, just as it
was improper to meet with Mr. Bonsell after his cross was
concluded.

THE COURT: Well, you've made that point. I
understand that point, and that's for me to do with what I need
to do with. But setting that on the side burner for the moment,
the issue of whether they discussed his questions today may
traipse over into the privilege.

MR. ROTHSCHILD: I think a yes/no answer to that
question does not, Your Honor. That would be my position.

THE COURT: No, I'm going to sustain the objection,
but I note your point.

Q Mr. Baksa, Mr. Gillen -- you testified under Mr.
Gillen's redirect that the end result on what the policy would be
was a far different place than some board members intended to go.
What board members were you referring to when you made that
statement?

A Well, when you look at what was originally
proposed, Mr. Bonsell had mentioned, you know, a fifty-fifty
split, side by side, time for time with evolution; that didn't
happen. Our teachers taught evolution and nothing else at the end
of the day.

Mr. Buckingham wanted the Pandas, side by side
with Miller-Levine, and for teachers to be teaching out of both;
that didn't happen, the book ended up in the library. So -- and
the board wanted initially a discussion, we would mention other
theories and there would be a discussion and then we'd get onto
teaching. Well, at the end of the day we drafted a statement that
did not allow for any discussion or any questions. So that looks
very different than what some of the board members intended
earlier on.

Q And Mr. Buckingham, in June, also mentioned
having a textbook with creationism in it, correct?

A I remember him mentioning creationism at the
board meeting in response to Mrs. Callahan's questioning why we
don't have a textbook. I don't specifically remember that -- I
mean, I don't remember the context other than him saying
that.

Q Now, you have testified that it was your
understanding that science teachers mention -- their prior
practice had mentioned creationism, right?

Q Now, you never thought that they were mentioning
or presenting creationism as a scientific proposition, did
you?

A Well, I don't think I had any understanding
other than they were mentioning that to accommodate possibly the
beliefs of their students and to explain to them what they would
be teaching, what they wouldn't be teaching.

Q Well, if you heard that they were presenting
creationism as a scientific theory, you knew from attending
Messiah College that that would be illegal, right?

A I knew that teaching creationism would be
illegal, but the -- you know, all the information that I ever got
from teachers was that they did mention it. What they said about
it or -- I just don't have that information.

Q No reason to believe that they were presenting
it as a scientific theory.

A Well, again, I don't -- I don't have any other
information than that they said that they did mention it.

Q Fair enough. And it is clear to you that
intelligent design is being presented as a scientific theory to
the students of Dover, correct?

A I don't know how the students would -- you know,
the language talks about an explanation other than Darwin s. I'd
have to go back and look at the statement language, but I don't
think the statement language goes as far as to say intelligent
design is another scientific theory. So what the students
understanding would be after the statement is read, I wouldn't
know that.

Q Now, the board sent a newsletter to the entire
community of Dover, correct?

Q And it communicates to the community of Dover,
including the parents of these school children, what's going on
at Dover regarding this -- the teaching of evolution and the
presentation of intelligent design, correct?

Q I'm a little unclear, and if you answered this,
Mr. Baksa, I'm sorry, I just didn't get it, but I'm a little
unclear as to your recollection as to when you -- and I know you
may not know precisely, but when did you develop that?

A I found the document, it was not dated, but when
I found it there were papers with this document dated August of
2003.

Q All right. And tell me again what your best
recollection is of the development of that.

Q There is a notation on this that I don't think
you were asked about, and I presume it's your writing, but I want
to ask you. If you would highlight for me what appears to be, on
the left side it says, "no mural ever again," if I'm reading that
correctly. Is that your handwriting?

A These were some of the concessions that we were
agreeing to, to move forward to purchase Miller-Levine. And Mr.
Buckingham did not ever want to see a mural that depicted -- that
was in the science class and was removed, he didn't want to see a
mural like that ever again in the classroom.

A The science teachers. And then as a result of
that, Mrs. Brown was going to develop language -- language in our
gift policy that made sure that anything displayed in the
classroom aligned to the content.

Q So the quid pro quo or the exchange, if you
will, or an exchange for using the Miller and Levine textbook was
that there would never be a mural of the type that depicted
evolution portrayed again?

And if I understood your testimony correctly, you
were aware that it was distributed -- that copies or a copy was
distributed to someone else?

A What I know is that I had a copy. I don't
believe I gave my copy to anyone. But Mr. Hoover, Doug Hoover is
another Social Studies teacher, and I do know from talking to him
that he had read it. Whether --

Q And that's what your note references in 04, if I
understand it correctly?